Predictive deterioration modelling
The capability that sets CAMS apart from a static asset register. A basic model replaces an asset at its design life, a flat line over time. CAMS uses more than 900 asset-specific deterioration curves to forecast the probability of an asset moving through each condition, from Condition 1 to Condition 5, combining the expected behaviour of the asset type with its actual condition and operating environment.
- 900+ asset-specific deterioration curves
- Probability across condition states 1 to 5
- Expected behaviour plus actual condition
- Operating environment, exposure and utilisation
- Site-specific deterioration rates
- A predictive basis, not a fixed replacement date
Lifecycle cost forecasting
Deterioration predictions become a long-term financial forecast. CAMS separates expected expenditure into capital, planned and reactive cost across the planning period, so asset owners can see not just how much may be required, but when the pressure occurs and what is driving it.
- Capital, planned and reactive expenditure
- Forecast across a 10, 20 or 25-year horizon
- Timing and type of future cost
- Portfolio, site, class or asset level
- Filter by condition, criticality and cost category
- Drivers of future cost surfaced
Scenario comparison
Different maintenance and renewal strategies produce different forecasts. CAMS lets users compare strategies and understand the cost, risk and operational impact of each. A conservative strategy may invest earlier and reduce risk; run-to-fail may defer spend but accept more deterioration. Two strategies can carry a similar overall cost but very different outcomes.
Conservative
Lower riskStandard
BalancedRun-to-fail
Higher risk- Conservative, standard and run-to-fail strategies
- Targeted investment for critical assets
- Budget-constrained renewal
- Applied at portfolio, site, class or asset level
- Cost, risk and useful-life comparison
- The right strategy for the consequence of the asset
Intervention timing analysis
Deferral does not simply move the same cost into a later year. CAMS compares earlier versus later intervention for the same asset: acting earlier may require a smaller intervention and limits the time the asset spends in a high-risk condition, while waiting allows further deterioration that can increase the scope and cost of the work.
| Act early (year 8) | Defer to year 12 | |
|---|---|---|
| Condition at intervention | C3 | C4 to C5 |
| Scope | Refurbishment | Full replacement |
| Intervention cost | $4,800 | $11,200 |
| Months in high-risk condition | 0 | 14 |
| Failure risk before works | Low | High |
- Earlier versus later intervention
- Effect of timing on scope and cost
- Time spent in high-risk condition
- Repair, refurbish, renew or defer
- Illustrative cost-of-delay
- Better decisions about when to act
Budget management and funding gaps
CAMS applies the available budget to the forecast. Required expenditure is shown against the available funding line, with the cumulative position over time. A programme may look affordable on average yet still contain years where several renewals arrive together and the budget cannot meet demand. Users can test funding positions and see what falls behind, what can be staged and what must remain protected.
- Forecast demand against available funding
- Cumulative funding position
- Years where renewals cluster
- What can be staged, deferred or protected
- Backlog growth over time
- Evidence for a funding submission
Criticality-based prioritisation
Not every asset carries the same consequence of failure. CAMS views the same forecast through the lens of criticality, separating expenditure into critical, high, medium and low. A low-criticality asset with redundancy may be deferred, while an asset supporting security, compliance, safety or essential services may need earlier intervention.
- Expenditure by criticality (critical to low)
- Consequence-of-failure weighting
- Redundancy-aware deferral
- Protection of safety and compliance assets
- Predicted deterioration plus criticality
- Practical decision groups
Integrations
Predictive deterioration and budgeting connects to the wider CAMS platform so forecasts draw on the governed asset register, condition and inspection data, work order and cost history, and risk and criticality, within one connected environment.
Full specificationReporting and funding evidence
Operational and strategic reporting turns the forecast into evidence. Predicted-spend dashboards, criticality and scenario views and budget-versus-funding reporting communicate future asset need, budget pressure and risk to executives, boards, councils and funding bodies.
- Predicted-spend dashboards
- Criticality and risk views
- Scenario comparison reports
- Budget-versus-funding reporting
- Portfolio and site reporting
- Funding-submission evidence